Cost-effectiveness of dementia training for caregivers in caregiver-patient dyads: A randomized controlled study.

Introduction: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the "More at Home with Dementia" intervention, a multicomponent training program for co-residing caregivers of people with dementia (PwDs). Methods: We performed a two-armed randomized controlled trial with an intervention and a control group. Participants were community-dwelling caregivers living with a person with dementia (59 randomized to intervention and 50 to control arm). The training program lasted 5 days and took place in a holiday accommodation. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions 3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L) for caregivers and PwDs. Costs for informal and formal social care, as well as health care, were collected at four times over a 6-month period from baseline. Information on nursing home admission or death was collected for 2 years after baseline. Results: QALYs for caregivers and PwDs added together were 0.12 higher in the intervention group compared with the control group (P = .11). After 1 year, there tended to be fewer nursing home admissions in the intervention group, but this difference was lost by 2 years (P = .19). The cost of the intervention was estimated at €1000 (USD 1090) per dyad. Compared with the control group, the intervention group used other health care and formal social care significantly less for a year after baseline (P = .02 and .001, respectively). The estimated decrease in total costs was €10,437 (P = .07), with an estimated 96% probability that the intervention was cost-effective vs usual care. Discussion: The multicomponent "More at Home with Dementia" training program is effective and appears to save costs compared with usual care. Savings appear to be achieved by delaying nursing home admissions and by reducing the use of other care resources. Further research is also needed to clarify if this intervention is effective for caregivers who do not live with a PwD, such as adult children, and for the caregivers of patients with other debilitating chronic diseases. At the same time, effort is advised to implement caregiver training in standard care programs.

Effects of Caregiver Dementia Training in Caregiver-Patient Dyads on Psychotropic Drug Prescription: A Randomized Controlled Study.

PURPOSE: Does participating in a multicomponent intervention targeting caregivers change the prescription rates of psychotropic drugs of caregivers or the person with dementia (PWD) they live with and care for. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants were 142 dyads of community-dwelling cohabiting caregivers and PWD randomized to intervention or control (care as usual). Participating caregivers received the intervention in a holiday accommodation over five days in groups of two to six dyads. During this time, caregivers attended 14 psychoeducational group sessions on relevant emotional, relational, practical, financial, and social changes related to living with PWD. These sessions were delivered by a psychologist, a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, an elderly care physician, a dietician and a social worker and included combating social isolation, planning for the future, re-rolling, medical aspects of dementia, fitness, therapeutic use of facilities, nutrition and using community services. The design was a randomized controlled trial. Outcomes were compared 3 months after baseline. Drug use for both caregivers and PWD were reported as all psychotropic drug use and specified as antipsychotic, antidepressant, and anxiolytic and hypnotic drug use based on Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classifications. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, no significant difference was observed in psychotropic drug use by 3 months after baseline among caregivers (p 0.22 MD -0.08 95% CI -0.20-0.05) or PWD (p 0.61, MD 0.04 95% -0.12-0.21) in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: A multicomponent course for caregivers living with PWD did not affect psychotropic drug use by either person. This may be explained by the low level of baseline drug use and the lack of the prescribing physician involvement in the present study. The low baseline drug use likely reflects selection bias for caregiver participants who were more inclined to use psychosocial interventions in preference to psychotropic medication, making them more likely to participate in caregiver training.

Caregiver dementia training in caregiver-patient dyads: Process evaluation of a randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: We performed a randomized controlled study to evaluate the effects of caregiver training on the well-being of both people with dementia and their caregivers. Before the effect analysis, we conducted a process evaluation to estimate internal and external validity. This was anticipated to augment our understanding of the outcomes. METHODS: We focused on three questions. (a) Was the intervention performed as planned (internal validity)? (b) Can qualitative data be used to inform how the intervention evoked change? (c) Can the study outcomes be extrapolated to all caregivers living with people who have dementia (external validity)? RESULTS: Responses from participants assigned to the intervention group suggested that the intervention was feasible, could be performed as planned, and that modelling and discussions between participants were important. However, participant recruitment to the entire study was ultimately laborious because participants had issues with the study design (risk of being assigned to the control group) and referrers lacked familiarity with the training (new type of intervention). Participants were also younger and better educated compared with the general population. Some dropouts in the follow-up period occurred due to the number of questionnaires, and this was more pronounced in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Although we achieved high internal validity, we lack certainty about the external validity. We not only experienced general difficulty in recruiting participants but also tended to recruit a biased sample that was relatively young and well educated. These factors combine to limit our ability to extrapolate the results to the general population.

Effects of caregiver dementia training in caregiver-patient dyads: A randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: Caregivers for people with dementia (PWD) have reported needing emotional and social support, improved coping strategies, and better information about the illness and available support services. In this study, we aimed to determine the effectiveness of an Australian multicomponent community-based training program that we adapted and implemented in a non-medical Dutch health care setting. METHODS AND DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial was performed: 142 dyads of cohabiting caregivers and PwD were randomized to control (care as usual) or intervention (training program) groups and outcomes were compared. Programs lasted 1 week, comprised 14 sessions, and were delivered by specialist staff. We included 16 groups of two to six caregivers. The primary outcome was care-related quality of life (CarerQol-7D) at 3 months. The main secondary outcomes for caregivers were self-rated burden, health and mood symptoms, and for PwD were neuropsychiatric symptoms, quality of life, and agitation. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed for the primary outcome. However, caregivers experienced fewer role limitations due to physical function (adjusted mean difference, 13.04; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3.15-22.93), emotional function (13.52; 95%CI, 3.76-23.28), and pain reduction (9.43; 95%CI, 1.00-17.86). Positive outcomes identified by qualitative analysis included better acceptance and coping and improved knowledge of dementia and available community services and facilities. CONCLUSION: Quantitative analysis showed that the multicomponent course did not affect care-related quality of life but did have a positive effect on experienced role limitations and pain. Qualitative analysis showed that the course met the needs of participating dyads.

The "more at home with dementia" program: a randomized controlled study protocol to determine how caregiver training affects the well-being of patients and caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Caring for people with dementia imposes heavy burdens on caregivers, especially spouses. This can lead to depression, anxiety, and physical symptoms in the caregiver, with early institutionalization for the patient. An Australian study reported that a residential caregiver training program delivered in medical settings could delay nursing home admission, lower mortality, reduce psychological morbidity in caregivers, and lower healthcare costs. In this replication study, we aim to determine the effectiveness of an adaptation of this program to non-medical settings in the Dutch health care system. METHODS: A randomized controlled study design will be used, comparing an intervention group with a control group. The intervention will last for five days and will be delivered in either a holiday park or a bed and breakfast setting. The control group will receive care as usual. Data will be collected at baseline and after 3 and 6 months, and outcomes will be assessed in the caregiver group and in the dementia group. The primary outcome will be caregiver-related quality of life after 3 months. The main secondary outcome will be the neuropsychiatric symptoms in the dementia group. Secondary outcomes in the dementia group will be activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living, use of health facilities, quality of life, agitation, dementia severity, and use of psychotropic medication. Secondary outcomes in the caregiver group will be the subjective and objective burdens, health and health care facility use, psychotropic medication use, depression, anxiety, and perseverance time. DISCUSSION: We anticipate that the outcomes will allow us to confirm the effectiveness of the intervention, and in turn, potentially inform the introduction of this program into care plans. It is also expected that the experiences and recommendations of participants will help us to develop the training program further. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register on March 9, 2016, number 5775 .

Effects of Psychosocial Interventions for Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms in Dementia on the Prescription of Psychotropic Drugs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is often accompanied by neuropsychiatric symptoms. Psychotropic drugs for the treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms are frequently used to manage these problems, but they are of limited effectiveness and can have serious side effects. Psychosocial interventions are advocated as first line treatment and may help to reduce psychotropic drug use. AIMS: To assess the effect of multidisciplinary psychosocial interventions in nursing homes on the psychotropic drug prescription rate. METHODS: Literature obtained from searches in 9 electronic databases was systematically reviewed. In addition, the pooled effects of specific psychosocial interventions in homogenous subgroups were analyzed (meta-analysis). RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled studies that investigated multiple psychotropic drugs interventions (psychotropic drugs in 3, antipsychotics in 9, and antidepressants in 5 studies) as well as different types of psychosocial interventions were included. We separately analyzed interventions directed at the care staff level (educational programs in 3, in-reach services or consultation in 1, cultural or process change in 6 studies) and the individual resident level in 1 study. In 7 out of 9 studies reporting on antipsychotic drug use, the physician was actively involved. Nine studies in which antipsychotic drug use was specified reported a significant decrease in prescription rate as a result of psychosocial interventions [relative risk (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59-0.88], whereas meta-analysis of 5 studies investigating antidepressant drug use failed to show a significant effect (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64-1.02). Pooled effect sizes of 6 studies investigating cultural change, showed a significant decrease in antipsychotic drug use (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.57-0.73). Effect sizes of 2 studies on educational programs on antipsychotic use were nonsignificant (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.49-4.64). Sensitivity analysis of 7 studies reporting on antipsychotic drug use involving prescribing physicians showed a more robust decrease (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that psychosocial interventions may lead to a substantial reduction of antipsychotic drug prescription, especially in studies that reported on cultural change and that involved prescribing physicians. Conspicuously, a profound lack of information was observed in many studies as to what exactly constituted the care-as-usual treatment in the control group.

Association Between Glycosylated Hemoglobin and Cardiovascular Events and Mortality in Older Adults without Diabetes Mellitus in the General Population: The Leiden 85-Plus Study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and incident cardiovascular disease and mortality in 85-year-old individuals without diabetes mellitus from the general population. DESIGN: Population-based prospective follow-up study. SETTING: General population. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals without known diabetes mellitus (N = 445, n = 291 female). MEASUREMENTS: HbA1c levels were categorized into three groups (<5.0% (31 mmol/mol), 5.0-5.7% (31-39 mmol/mol; reference), 5.7-6.5% (39-48 mmol/mol)). RESULTS: At baseline, a history of myocardial infarction (MI) was more prevalent in subjects in the highest HbA1c group (18%) than in the reference group (7%) (P = .001). Prospectively, those with the highest level of HbA1c at baseline had a risk of incident MI during the 5-year follow-up that was 3.6 (95% confidence interval = 1.5-8.3) times as great as that of the reference group. No association was found between HbA1c level and incident stroke, cardiovascular mortality, or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: In individuals aged 85 and older without diabetes mellitus, higher HbA1c is associated with greater risk of MI but not with stroke and mortality.